Does No-Fault Supplant Tort?
To the extent that no-fault is enacted as a “tort reform,” as the term is commonly used, it must be seen as a method to alleviate the perceived problems in tort, particularly the high cost of medical malpractice insurance and the frequency of filed claims. The issue of whether no-fault supplants tort can be examined in several ways. In this article, we asked whether the mandatory nature of the no-fault statutes served to reduce the number of tort claims filed. We examined whether no-fault claimants differ from tort claimants and whether the claims themselves differ. In particular, we examined the claims to find if there were more substandard care in tort claims than in no-fault claims. If so, this would be evidence against the substitution of no-fault for tort. We also asked whether the implementation of no-fault lowered both the use of attorneys and the legal costs associated with medical malpractice claims. Fourth, we examined levels of satisfaction of no-fault claimants and tort cla
